> Thanks Don - this is exactly what we need.
Hi Renato,
I have also started to collate as many top-level Statutes as I can
(Emergency Management Acts and Regulations) to help identify the hierarchy
of language we need, so we can ensure any standards adopted are in
compliance.
Just by way of introduction for anyone new to EM -
Most states & nations have an Emergency Management Act or Statute (or
similarly named legislative device), that describes top-level
responsibilities, accountabilities, and defines terms and organisational
structures during emergency and escalating disaster (eg: Most of these
Statutes will define words like "emergency" and "disaster" and name the
devices and instruments used for response and emergency planning purposes
etc.). The Statutes and Acts are "law", and can only be changed or otherwise
amended through Parliamentary process (name your political system here). The
Acts themselves are increasingly uniform across national boundaries through
international cooperative agreements.
Underneath these statutes, are emergency plans, dictionaries and other
instruments and utilities built under Statute carrying legal compliance
requirements (instruments and utilities of emergency management that must be
followed by law; breach of which is a breach of law).
Underneath again, are what we deem 'EM Standards' by virtue of accreditation
by an approved authority. The hierarchy of a standard is usually that of a
national standard (AS) built to compliance with an ISO (International
Standard). ISO and national (AS) construction involves extensive public
consultation and is a lengthy process (the description of which is beyond
the scope of this brief).
Underneath again from a hierarchical perspective, are locally adopted
policies, standards and practices either built internally by EM orgs or
adopted and massaged for suitability of purpose. These are the "Practices of
EM" deployed by EM agencies and built and amended as needs dictate. These
are also the processes most held accountable during any public briefs and
analysis held post disaster (public hearings and Coronial Inquests etc.).
Lastly are the many extraneous standards, practices and policies that might
(or might not) impact on EM accountabilities. (eg: a standard not directly
relating to EM but potentially having an impact during emergency). The
reason these are described as extraneous is because legislation itself is
hierarchical, and EM legislation is always "top-tier", meaning other
legislative instruments and hierarchical trees are inferior during and post
an emergency or disaster. Usually the only exception to this rule are
legislative trees enacted under an Act of War.
At some point we will need to ensure the standards we accept are identified
within this structure, and depending on placement, are compliant.
Cheers,
Don Cameron